Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00008-PAB-KLM
04-13-2012
MARLIN CRUMP, Plaintiff, v. JAMES IRWIN CHARTER SCHOOLS, Defendant.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on March 21, 2012 [Docket No. 17]. The magistrate judge recommends that defendant's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 10] be granted and that this case be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient factual detail to support an inference of discrimination or retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on March 21, 2012. No party has objected to the Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
This standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Court further notes that, in addition to lacking sufficiently specific facts describing the conduct at issue, the complaint more generally fails to plead that plaintiff suffered discrimination on account of his "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), or was retaliated against for asserting his or another's rights to be free from such discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Rather, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that his employment was terminated because he expressed concerns about the safety of a particular vacuum cleaner used at his job and threatened to report those concerns. See Docket No. 1 at 4, ¶¶ 9-10. Accordingly, it is
Furthermore, in his response to defendant's motion, plaintiff identifies no protected category implicated by the facts of this case. See generally Docket No. 13.
--------
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 17] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII Complaint [Docket No. 10] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Title VII Complaint [Docket No. 1] is dismissed without prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
_____________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge